2022 (6) TMI 310 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of regular bail - Proceeds of crime - wrongful availment of VAT refund - applicability of Section 45 of PMLA 2002 - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the petitioner himself is not a Director of M/s Jaldhara Cotspin Private Limited and that it is his son and father, who are the Directors. Though learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the proceeds of crime amount to the tune of Rs.8.7 lakhs had been transferred in the bank account of petitioner Vinod Kumar Garg, but a perusal of the reply filed by the respondent shows that it is infact an amount of Rs.2.56557 lakhs, which had been transferred into the bank account of petitioner Vinod Kumar Garg. It will be debatable as to whether the said amount had been received by the petitioner while being aware that the same was proceeds of crime or not. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA 2002 - HELD THAT - The said provisions though stringent in nature were amended w.e.f. 19.4.2018, wherein an exception was carved out in cases where the amount in question is less than Rs.1 crore. The present complaint was instituted in December 2018. In other words, the instant complaint had been instituted after the amendment had been carried out and thus the applicability of Section 45 of PMLA 2002 would be subject to exception that the amount in question is more than Rs.1 crore. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
- The petitioner sought regular bail in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, related to alleged VAT refund fraud.
- The FIR alleged that the petitioner benefited from wrongly availed VAT refund funds transferred through various accounts.
- The petitioner's counsel argued that he was falsely implicated due to his familial relations with co-accused and that the transferred funds were for his maintenance.
- The State counsel opposed bail, citing the petitioner's past involvement in similar cases and the seriousness of the current charges.
- The court noted that the petitioner was not a director of the company involved in the fraud and that a lesser amount than claimed was transferred to his account.
- The court considered the applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, which was subject to exceptions for amounts less than Rs.1 crore post-amendment in 2018.
- Despite the State's objections, the court granted bail due to the amount received by the petitioner, his age, and his time in custody.
- The court ordered the petitioner's release on regular bail upon satisfying the necessary bond requirements.